Miguel <mmelgar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:fe1f5834-27ae-4f71-ab82-c85a448cfc77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 20, 8:52 pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> innews:54de6f1e-3e04-4e29-a70a
> -475de7bc7f26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 4:06 pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> >> news:f944cba5-6920-41c9-
>> >> 8260-a8624d1ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > Just saw it this morning, pretty decent stuff though it's more
>> >> > serious than "funny" as the ads for it suggest. The most
>> >> > interesting aspect was watching hardcore Darwinian scientists
>> >> > admit that they know absolutely nothing about how life (i.e. the
>> >> > first single cell organism) was formed on Earth and yet in the
>> >> > same breath rule out "Intelligent Design". Gee guys...if you
>> >> > admit you don't know...And yet the theories they propose (such
>> >> > as the combination of the necessary elements forming on the back
>> >> > of a crystal...I'm not making this up) make "Intelligent Design"
>> >> > look pretty darn sane.
>>
>> >> > The ending of the film is even more astounding as one simple
>> >> > question gets the most unlikely answer from one of the most
>> >> > visable Darwinian proponent/athiests/whatever in today's media.
>>
>> >> > Good job, Ben Stein...anyone?
>>
>> >> Before you praise this movie Ken you may wish to see the special
>> >> that Scientific American put together, basically this is about as
>> >> much a do***entary onevolutionas "Bowling for Colombine" is on gun
>> >> control.
>>
>> > At least you admit that you haven't seen the movie.
>>
>> No but I intend to, it's that nasty littlesciencetraining in me that
>> wants to examine all the evidence. However I have been reading about
>> the rise of the I.D. variation on creationism for many years now and
>> are familiar with their methods and arguements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> They actually put out several stories in a special email,
>> >> including one
>> > on
>> >> the main misrepresentations in the film.this might be a good place
>> >> to star
>> > t
>> >> as a basic
>> >> rebuttal.http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-ex
>> > pelled
>>
>> > Let's take it one at a time;
>>
>> > 1) ) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his
>> > ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
>>
>> > Uhm, no. What the film does do is connect how the "science" of
>> > eugenics was warped and modified by Hitler in order to justify his
>> > treatment of "lesser" peoples.
>>
>> Eugenics is not natural selection. You could make a better arguement
>> that the holocaust was influenced by the long scale religious
>> persecution of jews by the Christian church.Evolutionis not "red in
>> tooth and claw" it selects for advantage, alturism is one method of
>> gaining an advantage. In fact it is through the knowledge of
>> evolutionry theory that we understand that homo sapians are not
>> divided into sub-species but exhibit variation. In words you may
>> appreciate,we are all equal under god.
>>
>> > 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a
>> > setup.
>>
>> > Yes, that was pretty obvious although the amount of time on the
>> > "speech" in the film was less than a minute. I suppose the rant was
>> > against the standing ovation he got which also looked staged, but
>> > big whoop as the most powerful moments of the film were already
>> > presented.
>>
>> I haven't seen the film but the view of several people I have
>> read/hear
> d
>> state that this is not how it was put forward.
>>
>> > 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
>> > different movie.
>>
>> > Of that I have no doubt, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to be
>> > interviewed. After all, the main thrust of the film was how some
>> > scientists have been either expelled or punished for mearly
>> > bringing up the subject of Intelligent Design even if they took no
>> > position on it. So knowing that, why would any scientist get within
>> > a mile of this film?
>>
>> I'm currently reading one of Steven Jay Goulds books on natural
>> history, he quite willing went head to head in debates on the matter
>> as have other big name scientists. You do have to wonder about the
>> motivations of the films staff when they lie outright to several
>> people at the onset.
>>
>> > 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having
>> > lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee
>> > there.
>>
>> > I'd say that's sorta right even if the film didn't quite state
>> > exactly his "employed" status. It does state that reps from the
>> > Smithsonian declined any interviews which if true didn't help their
>> > case.
>>
>> Did you listen to the podcast of the interview one of the associate
>> producers stated that they went to the Smithsonian with a camera crew
>> and without an appointment which is why they were thrown out. Why
>> should the Smithsonian comment on a story about a member of their
>> staff, it would hardly be professional of them.
>>
>> > 5)Sciencedoes not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
>> > because of dogmatic atheism.
>>
>> > No, it's just the ones who bring it up that get slapped down.
>>
>> For which you have no evidence, the re****t about the chap at the
>> Smithsonian was produced by a pro-ID advocate and not read into the
>> congressional record. In fact in one of the appendices is a
>> collection of emails from his superiors at the Smithsonian which
>> state that he is not to be given any form of "punishement" for his ID
>> beliefs. What he did do however is subvert the peer review process by
>> publi****ng an article in a magazine reviewed only by himself, a
>> definite no no in scientific circles.
>> As you may have noticed I like to talk, I love to debate,explore
>> ideas learn new things.It's the scientist in me.
>> Ben Stein however has a differing viewpoint,
>> 'What would you like to say to Darwin?
>>
>> "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you
>> just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your
>> half- baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"'
>> Truly a man who believes in intellectual debate it seems.
>>
>> > 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
>> > people acceptevolution.
>>
>> > It presents the personal viewpoints of some scientists who reject
>> > religion and propose their "fantasy" future where it all goes the
>> > way of the Greek myths. The film does not state that this is true
>> > of all Darwinian scientists.
>>
>> The associate producer chap states in the interview that they did not
>> include religious scientists because it would confuse the issue. ID
>> is nothing more or less than an attempt to get creationism and
>> Christian religion taught in school. To show that some scientists are
>> religious would make this harder to do.
>>
>> >> I'm not sure if you know this but I studied biochemistry at
>> >> university
>> > and
>> >> so this subject is of interest to me even though I admit that my
>> >> knowledge
>>
>> >> now is limited to reading the less technical papers and I am a
>> >> little out of date.
>>
>> > So you haven't seen the film and you haven't kept up with
>> > biochemistry...and this makes you qualified to judge the film on
>> > what basis?
>>
>> So tell me Ken exactly what is your specialised knowledge of
>> evolutionary biology or any branch of biology? when was the last time
>> that you took cl***** ongeneticsand comparative anatomy for example?
>> In fact when was the last time you cracked a text book on the
>> subject? The chap being interviewed was an associate producer. He
>> stated on more
>
>> than one occasion that he "was not a scientist" he claimed he had no
>> knowledge of the "wedge strategy" or on the findings of the judge in
>> the Dover case. It appears that I am more informed than him about the
>> very basics of the film.
>> I am no longer a scientist,just as I am no longer a martial artist.
>> I haven't trained in years, however I could still teach the basics of
>> both. The knowledge is still in my head and I take an interest in
>> both subjects, in fact the last thing I read before replying to you
>> was a paper on the lung capacity of maniraptorans. I still read New
>> scientist and scientific american as well as some of the more
>> specialised publications, I'm just not that up to date on the aspects
>> of plant biochemistry that interested me.
>> If you have any questions of the mechanics ofevolutionI would be
>> more than happy to try to explain them to you.
>>
>> >> I.D. gives us NO answers, it obscures the work done by scientists
>> >> and pretends to be scientific but has none of the rigor.
>>
>> > Wow, you have certainly jumped to a conclusion that's not in the
>> > film.
>>
>> No, I haven't jumped to conclusions it is what ID is and my years of
>> reading about the subject have helped form those views, there is
>> noscience
> involved and cannot be because it takes a metaphysical viewpoint.
>> This is true of ALLsciencenot just biology, as soon as you say that
>> god did it you remove the need for inqury, you have no cause and
>> effect. Anything could happen at anytime due to the action or
>> inaction of a deity. That is a very very basic part of scientific
>> methodology, if they didn't make that clear I do have to wonder just
>> how techincial they got. Various testable hypothesis have been
>> suggested by ID proponents but without fail they fail the simplest of
>> basic tests, the very bedrock ofsci
> ence.
>>
>> >> It replaces a I don't
>> >> know but I am going to explore,to ponder,to experiment,to sift
>> >> through the
>>
>> >> data with, my choice of deity did it no matter the evidence may
>> >> show. It i
>> > s
>> >> a dead-end, and intellectual cul-de-sac.
>>
>> > Which is stated by one scientist in the film. You see, both sides
>> > were presented.
>>
>> One voice amongst how many? Given how much time to explain.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Yet the scientific community has no explaination of the origins of
>> > life on Earth, that is certainly without dispute, only some
>> > theories that as of yet cannot be proven. Which gets to the heart
>> > of the film,
>
>> > not that Intelligent Design is the answer or even that strong a
>> > possibility, but the intentional qua****ng of any debate that can
>> > include it. When the odds of how the right elements could've
>> > combined
>
>> > by accident to form the first living cell are calculated, the
>> > effective answer is
>>
>> ...
Much like the calculations of the chances of life on other planets in the
universe the answer to this is very much predicated on the postulates
that you take at the start.
However having said that, improbable is not impossible.
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What movie are you talking about. Lots of word talking about a movie
> but never mentioning the name of the movie.
> Miguel Melgar
>
It's mentioned in the title, Expelled, and hello! we don't talk this much
all the time don't worry. Well I do but nobody ever listens to me anyway
:-)
--
Stare too long into the abyss and the abyss looks like a nifty place to
hide the bodies
|
